I wouldn't say it was the "only" answer because clearly many people like the linear thing. Aside from that I agree with the OP.
One problem is that not many people have seen just how effective a sandbox can be as an MMO. I can't comment much on Eve because I got too bored flying spaceships through vast nothingness to ever see what the game involved, but in most sandbox style mmorpgs it seems to be an excuse for lack of content. For a sandbox game to work you have to provide the tools to dig and shape the sand and very few games have achieved this.
I had a discussion with some players in a game which is considered to be one of the more sandboxy mmorpgs and the idea of player run cities was something they just couldn't imagine working, and yet probably the best multiplayer game I ever played did just that and in doing so provided player run story lines where people's characters could really make a mark in the history of that world. That game was a text MUD and other MUD players may know the kind of game I'm talking about.
Games such as Eve and SWG and many posts in these forums have shown that there is a market for such games. If any developers came up with a mmorpg with influences from the best sandbox MUDs, with the complexity of gameplay and options which allowed players to play their game how they like (trader, politician, commander, brawler, thief etc.) I think it would achieve great success.
No wonder games like Grand Theft Auto, Ultima Online, Oblivion/Morrowind, Second Life have been so popular. Give us some structure but only when we choose, but most importantly give us a TON of small things to do that are fun. We are very different from each other and each of us like different things. Don't penalize for taking "bad" actions. Because in truth there are no "bad" actions. PVP should always be FFA with of limit cities. Just because you can kill someone and loot them doesn't mean you will. People will align with their "kind" PKers will align with PKers and the Good with the Good. Why is the lore forced upon us? There is nothing more frustrating than finding a nice person on the "other" side and having to be automatic enemies. Items are the last thing MMO's should be about. Can you imagine playing GTA with the "Pistol of DOOM" You wouldn't take any chances in fear of losing it. Skill trees and Classes are the worst. There is nothing worse than being forced to pick a class when you don't know any and feeling the Nerf stick once in a while. If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
The success of games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Final Fantasy XI and many, many other games prove you're wrong. Sand box is NOT the only answer. in fact, its quite the opposide.
It is not the only answer, of course. But if you want a virtual living world, and not just a linear "single" player game playable with a few friends, sandbox is the way to go.
It is quite simple why linear games are much more successful, because they are simplier to develop, and not as much time consuming to develop. You need not a huge world, you need not ideas how the world could develop themself and foresee some developments and bring the right tools for it into the game.
But nevertheless, sandboxes would be successful, look at muds, the most of them are sandboxes, with a reason. And in a mud it is not as expensive, not as difficult to create a true virtual world/sandbox, you have not to worry about graphics and other stuff. And because Muds are much smaller, just a few hundred ppl at maximum.. so the world do not need to be as huge as with the modern standard of mmorpgs and a thousands of simultan players.
And the same is true for EvE or any space sandbox with very limited options.. this is also why EvE worked out that good, because it is not a lot possible, your are just limited on the space, not planets, not even spacestations, and not a lot of options what you can do, it is almost reduced to warfare and economic.
And by the way, there will never be just one answer for games and gamers, because there are thousand and millions and almost everyone with a different view to things, and different wishes.
Sandboxes are almost as old as computer games, and a lot of them are immortal within the game history. Just think about Pirates!, it is maybe the first sandbox(at least the first i remember at the moment), and it is a legend. And yes, sandbox is perfectly suited for massive multiplayer, just from the design point of view.
In a sandbox any player will have different experiences, and a linear mmo everyone have the same eperience, this is the great advantage of a sandbox, but on the other side the difficulty, it is not as easy to design, and technically to realize. That is the reason why we have not a great modern sandbox mmo, and it is the reason why not a major company works on a sandbox.. to much investment, to much innovation, and not really guaranteed income(because until now almost unproved).
However, just look at Second Life, it isnt even a real game, but after WoW the next big MMO.
And about Storytelling and Sandbox.. they are not mutual exclusive, you can impliment a lot of even different, and conflicting dynamic storylines within a sandbox, this is one of the pros of a sandbox. The point is noone has done it until now, because the reasons above, it is not easy, and it need a lot of work.
For me playing in a sandbox game is just as fun as playing in a actual sandbox.
I sit down and look around wondering what i should do, so i start just messing around, i do a few things, eventually build a house or castle, look around realize that theres nothing else to really do, so i smash it and then get up and leave.
For me playing in a sandbox game is just as fun as playing in a actual sandbox. I sit down and look around wondering what i should do, so i start just messing around, i do a few things, eventually build a house or castle, look around realize that theres nothing else to really do, so i smash it and then get up and leave.
and for me I sit down in your sandbox, mess around a little bit, do a few thing,s and decide that I'm going to kick your sandcastle apart and then see if you've got the courage to do the same to mine....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
For me playing in a sandbox game is just as fun as playing in a actual sandbox. I sit down and look around wondering what i should do, so i start just messing around, i do a few things, eventually build a house or castle, look around realize that theres nothing else to really do, so i smash it and then get up and leave.
and for me I sit down in your sandbox, mess around a little bit, do a few thing,s and decide that I'm going to kick your sandcastle apart and then see if you've got the courage to do the same to mine....
I would, but since you left your abandoned for a few minutes some random people came up and stomped on it while you were over at mine.
I think we should look at the flip side as in what shouldn't be done. After playing several online games I am now quite angry at the lack of originality in all of them. Nearly all of them have a system, make character, follow linear mission, hit mob, gain xp, ding. max out and quit. So Sandbox may be one of the solutions but what really is needed is something ...well...anything different!
I have played EVE online for 3+ years and the next closest game to that was 3 months. Only reason why I have not quit is due to the fact I can do something else besides fighting and still level combat skills instead of having to grind my arse off to get another sparkly spell. That most of the time is pointless. Lower fire resistence..bah...
I don't mind the skill point allocation system though. Have 100+ available skills and each level get allocated sp's to spend on whatever. Race bonus's can apply easily enough. I would also love to see 'chance' improvements. Use an axe long enough and you may get a bonus point during combat.
For me playing in a sandbox game is just as fun as playing in a actual sandbox. I sit down and look around wondering what i should do, so i start just messing around, i do a few things, eventually build a house or castle, look around realize that theres nothing else to really do, so i smash it and then get up and leave.
Well, that is often a problem with sandbox games, the time to get into it, and be part from it, especially if it is mainly player driven.
But there would be solution for it, just fill your sandbox/virtual world with more or less clever npc inhabitants(as in solo player games like oblivion) within different fractions and so forth, give them a storyline and let them play(like a simulation) against each other, so that the virtual world would be living without any player. Bring in a storyline, so that the player will be hand held at the beginning, and given some simple quests/task. And after that the player can fullfil more and more positions in those npc factions and/or can take it over completely. And then could the player give out Quests/Task to other, new players, to bring them into the world, and so on.
However, the problem is the lack of good EI(emotional intelligence) and AI(artifical intelligence), but both is in developing, and will improved with the time.(i read about it anywhere.. cant remember, about a emotional intelligence engine, which should improve the social/emotional interaction from npcs). But the first step could be maybe, to make it like in singleplayer games(e.g. Siedler), where the npcs, worked with the tools you gave them. Build up a sawmill, and npc will begin to harvest the nearest forrest, and so forth and so on. well, everything in a little bit simplier level, but with the same idea.
But as i said before, something like that would be possible from a technically view of point, but it is rather complex, a lot of work to do, and withit much more expensive, than the much simpler linear games. And the big companies will always choose the easier path to the money, even if such a system would be profitable, not only the game, more as all the technology, the engines. But did you ever heard about a big company developing new software technology, or engines? No, of course not, they just buy them, and use it to maximize their profit whit as less of expenditure as possible. And for independent teams it is a great bury, they have not really a lot of money, to develop something like that for years with almost no income. But the new trend is, that specialist software companies, develop those engines independent, and different middleware, so that the actual mmo developer just need it to buy. But however, up to now we are far away from the point where you could really count on those engines and middleware.. they get better, but are now by no means as good as they should be. Just engines from the singleplayer genre(3D engine, physik engine) are at the high level, which would be needed.
Y'know what? I don't actually disagree with you strongly in spirit, but I have problems with definitive over-reaching statements that proclaim they are the only answer...
If you truly believe that sandbox games are the future of this hobby, which is a valid view and worth discussing, may I ask you which one you are currently supporting? Playing 'A Tale in the Desert III' perhaps? Some other game?
It just helps me get a view of where you are coming from.
No wonder games like Grand Theft Auto, Ultima Online, Oblivion/Morrowind, Second Life have been so popular.
Well... 2 of these 4 arnt even MMOs, so I am gonna guess here that you were having trouble finding enough truly sandbox mmoprgs to support your point. I also don't think that WoW is looking over it's shoulder at 2nd Life as a threat to it's subs yet either...
The fact is that both of the actual MMORPGs you cite here have been economically trashed by more linear, and less sandbox, orientated games, and that is the simple answer to why what you want isnt even on most Devs radars. It is simply more profitable to make focused story based games, because that what the mass market is currently demanding.
Lineage scored 30,000,000 subs, and Maple Story 50,000,000... Is a sandbox game ever gonna match these in terms of revenue? Could one even reach EQ1 at it's peak? When you consider the huge dev budgets of AAA MMORPGs these days, why do you think that the giant investment houses would put their money behind a niche sandbox game?
Unless a true sandbox game starts making these kind of figures, it dosent seem likely many are gonna get made in the near future to me except by indie devs with miniscule budgets and a lot of love.
Are you prepared to play with 10 year old grahics, and everything else that usually comes with indie Devs, to obtain a true sandbox experience? Or are you gonna be seduced by the latest DX10 story driven game to roll off the production line?
If it's the latter, then you are part of the problem.
Give us some structure but only when we choose, but most importantly give us a TON of small things to do that are fun.
Erm... surely a true sandbox game dosent give you ANYTHING to do? Surely it just gives you a set of tools? Surely it just dumps you in a wilderness and says 'Do what thee will'?
No missions, no lore, no items, no flavour... Most importantly, NO FUN, unless YOU yourself make it fun.
Im just saying this to be clear... Is this what you are asking for?
We are very different from each other and each of us like different things.
Of course, this is very true.
Of course also, I have to say this statement is very much at odds with your original statement telling me sandbox games are the ONLY answer. What if I don't like sandbox games and want some structure to my gameworld?
Don't penalize for taking "bad" actions. Because in truth there are no "bad" actions.
I'm a little confused as to what you mean here, would you clarify for me?
Are you saying that I shouldnt receive a negative impact from any action I undertake because they are all 'good' actions?
If, in a true sandbox game, I choose for my character to shoot Heroin 10 times a day, are you saying that he shouldnt ultimetly become addicted, physically/ mentally harmed, and maybe die because we shouldnt be penalised for our descisions on behalf of our characters?
PVP should always be FFA with of limit cities. Just because you can kill someone and loot them doesn't mean you will. People will align with their "kind" PKers will align with PKers and the Good with the Good.
This is a huge debate all of it's own.
The bottom line is tht if the majority of the player base WANTED what you want then FFA gankfest PvP would be at the top of the earnings tree and every game made would have it. The fact is that it isnt and that you are representing a minority in this view.
Anyhow, a true FFA PvPer wouldnt even want off limit cities surely? EQ1 didnt on it's PvP servers. Sounds kinda carebear to me...
Do you want hardcore FFA PvP or not?
Why is the lore forced upon us? There is nothing more frustrating than finding a nice person on the "other" side and having to be automatic enemies.
I am gonna assume you are asking 'should sides in a game be hardcoded', as opposed to suggesting they remove backstory and lore from games in this point...
Of course, there isnt any reason why this should be so either in a structured or sandbox type game.
Items are the last thing MMO's should be about. Can you imagine playing GTA with the "Pistol of DOOM" You wouldn't take any chances in fear of losing it.
Eh?
While there is a debate to be had about the pros and cons of itemcentric games, I am failing to see how having items in these games stops you taking chances...
Would you clarify here please?
Skill trees and Classes are the worst. There is nothing worse than being forced to pick a class when you don't know any and feeling the Nerf stick once in a while. If I want an invisible, healing, plate wearing mage, why can't I? Skills are answer here.
I personally enjoy classes and archtypes. They are a great shorthand that lets you know what you are getting when you take on a new member without frikin about and slowing the game down to a snails pace.
I much prefer looking for, for example, a L15 cleric, then having the following conversation every time...
Player A "Group heading to the the Crypts needs a healer"
Player B "Hey, can I come? I have Healing at skill rank 10!"
Player A "Thats great! Of course you can join! You do have ressurection, celestial summoning, and divine shields as well right?"
Player B "Erm... well no... I didnt take those.... You see, Im more of a beserker necromancer bard type healer..."
Player A "Actually, I'm sorry but I have just been told the group has just filled up..."
I not saying that classess couldnt be more creatively used, but I really like having them in for clarity of play.
SWG in its prime (when it still had a sandbox-based progression) it had around 300,000 subscribers. And that was 2-3 years ago, not to mention the game had its own problems.
A game as refined as WoW but had the same sandbox? I think it could EASILY hit 1,000,000 subs.
SWG in its prime (when it still had a sandbox-based progression) it had around 300,000 subscribers. And that was 2-3 years ago, not to mention the game had its own problems. A game as refined as WoW but had the same sandbox? I think it could EASILY hit 1,000,000 subs.
You have 15-30 million dollars you wanna gamble on that view? ;P
Seriously though, while SWG had sandbox elements, it was NEVER a true sandbox game of the type the OP is asking for.
I am not even gonna talk about SWG properly here though... every thread you even mention that game in gets hijacked by the mentally unstable SOE hating pre-NGE crowd for them to vent their angst and, TBH, it's just not worth it.
I totally agree with you OP. I wish it was the case, but the days of good sandbox just seem to be dying. I think it is because an older crowd is drawn to sandbox and a mmo company want youth so that the game has a long life.
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises.
Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved.
One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far.
Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world.
It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations.
I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be.
Nope, I know what a sandbox game is, and I perosnally think my response to the OP is pretty spot on... I will leave you to reread that maybe rather then repeat myself here
Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with.
Erm.. you have one of those worlds... It's called the 'Real World'... You may have heard of it
You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises.
Well, I don't think I ever suggested a true sandbox game is just a chatroom or anything... Of course players need the tools to build their world... I'm a little confused here with what you are trying to say, I admit...
Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you.
hehe you speak like a D&D wizard from 1978 :P
Actually though, gettin back to the point, in it's truest purest form that is exactly what a sand box game is...
A true SB game would just give you an unspoilt country and the tools to harvest and manage it, and then just set you down to do what you want to do. EVERYTHING else would be left to the players to invest in and build, from the growing of sustainable forests, to the defense of their homes, to the appointment of a maybe King.
Players would be the evil wizards that build the dungeons you adventure in, players would be the police force for better or worse, players would write the worlds history, and players would, maybe, be the gods other characters follow.
I am not 'befuddled' at all, I just see what the true potentiol of SB games are, whereas I think you are yearning for some half-way compromise that still spoon feeds you while giving you a shallow illusion of what SB gaming could really be.
As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box.
Well, I disagree. EVE is a good game, sure, and Yes I have played it and enjoyed it, but to call it a SB game is a little silly imo... It is a conventional MMORPG that utilises a few SB elements. While this is to be applauded, it certainly not a true SB game.
A Tale in the Desert III is a far better example of SB gaming.
As a supporter of SBs, you do play that right?
You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved.
You see where you are going here? A true SB game wouldnt rely on having to 'insipre' you to do anything.... It would just say there the world is, there are the tools to affect it, away ya go!
What you are arguing for is directed gameplay with a flavour of SB to give the illusion of true freedom.
One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far.
I kind of agree here actually... Community is everything and 90% of the reasons most MMORPGs have failed in my eyes since EQ1 is the current fashionable thoughts that favour solo casual MMO arcade game play over what I truley consider to me a MMORPG. But thats a whole new conversation
Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model.
UO sure, I can go with that, but that was a different game from a different time. You may as well argue that 'point and click' adventure games are the future of MMORPGs.
SoR is another great game, but there are a few very real reasons why it isnt as big as WoW, and one of these is the amount of SB gameplay it involves.
The mass market dosent want true SB games, and with the cost of development these days the mass market is king.
Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre.
Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world.
No, not blinded at all, but lets be very very real about this.
WoW, Maple Story, Lineage etc have changed the landscape of electronic gaming, and that landscape isnt friendly to niche SB games. MMORPGs, for better or worse, have entered the big leagues and now have the dev budgets that reflects that. I could go on here about how the giant budgets, lack of grass roots indie developers, and the market dominance of Goliaths like EA have effectively killed the gaming industry, but thats another post probably.
The fact is that massive dev budgets need massive hits to fund them, and niche gaming like SBs arnt that anymore.
The brave new world of virtual freedom you, and even I, once dreamt of is gone. It has been bought out by the corperations that would rather see you play virtual knitting like stupified sheep. If sheep could knit... ahh you know what I mean...
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises. Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved. One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far. Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world. It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations. I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises. Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved. One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far. Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world. It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations. I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
I would go along with that. Would you say EVE was a SB game? I remember starting 3+ years ago and flying around confused and frustrated until I realised that there wasn't a chirpy little NPC telling me to clear his corn fields from ants or whatever. Then I embraced the freedom and I am still playing 3.5 years later. Even so there was a very deep back story and there was some connection to one race or another. So if a SB game does work there must be some sort of framework to work within. There must be a point to the game still and having NPC factions that are at war should be a key part. Players can decide to start their own faction or join an existing one. Otherwise you will have large bands of people running around fighting over territory that doesnt mean anything. Ultimately I want a game that gives me the option to make my own way and to do the 'normal' linear missions. EVE so far is the closest thing I have found with agent missions and its open play.
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises. Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved. One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far. Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world. It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations. I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
Uhh.. i guess you misunderstand the term sandbox by yourself. You mean a completely empty sandbox, but sandbox generally means within mmos, just, that you can tool around with almost everything in the world, that you can influence the world and stories, and that it is not a linear way of playing or storyline.. because not possible, because you can change things up.
But this does not mean, that you cant have a living npc world, whcih would work without any real player. Or that it is not possible to tell newbies, what they can do(to get involved in the world in the very beginning), and direct them into the different storylines, action, and let learn them within this time, how they can influence with different tools the world and the story. And even easy reward is not a problem, because everytime you learna new tool, it is his own reward. If you influence the storyline, or the world, it is a reward.. and you can have a lot of other rewards, too.
But however, as i said in this thread, it is much more work to realize something like that, and withit much more expensive, and because of that a good reason for the major companies not to do it.
And yes.. an empty sandbox will most probably always fail, because the majority of players are not willingly to start in an empty world and learn everything by themself. And in an empty sandbox you need month, and a lot of committed players to build up a basic infrastructur to give the newbs an easier starting.. and even then it is not as easy as in other games.
You can have all the advantages and luxuries for casuals in a sandbox game, as in any linear game.. it is just more work. There is absolut nothing from a linear game, which is not possible within a sandbox.. but there are a lot of thing, which are not possible in a linear game, but possible in a sandbox. To be honest, i personally think, that the linear type of games is a relic from the old single player games, but for real mmog, a sandbox is a much better environment, and you can have everything their, and even more... it is just a lot more work. But i guess in the future we will maybe see a lot more of sandboxes, and it could be even the new standard, at least if the first really successful sandbox game arrive, which surpass the wow playerbase. (but this will take a lot of time. ^^ 10 years could be a good timeframe for this)
And i think this was also the reason why Richard Garriot tried the sandbox way with his first mmog(UO), but i guess he also realized, that it is extremely much work, to do it perfect, and that maybe the time is not ready for it. Dont forget, UO was really small, you had just a few tools to change the world, and with almost no storyline, but nevertheless a good amount of encounters, like the different dungeons, treasure huntings, simple npc tasks(to few, if you ask me) and so on.. and later on the player driven content.
And look at Tabula Rasa.. this is also a spinoff from the sandbox idea, now he tries to make a more player driven storyline, but with less sandbox elements, to change the world.. now the player can just change, and be involved within the story. But for the perfect virtual world/sandbox, you need of course both, and of course more pvp involved, but i personally think, that the npc faction fight(pve) like in Tabula Rasa is also neccassary, especially in the beginning of every sandbox, to bring the player into the game, until they take over the old npc factions, or found by themself new factions.
So from a design standpoint it is a quite clever step forward, he tries to push one element forward, to get later on all elements as far, to be able to design the perfect virtual world/sandbox. It is just to expensive to do everything at once within one game, and no investor would most probably invest in it, to get something like that realized in a polished form. So make it step by step, and release for every step a game, to finance yourself, and then have all tools, to make one game out of it.
I would go along with that. Would you say EVE was a SB game? I remember starting 3+ years ago and flying around confused and frustrated until I realised that there wasn't a chirpy little NPC telling me to clear his corn fields from ants or whatever. Then I embraced the freedom and I am still playing 3.5 years later. Even so there was a very deep back story and there was some connection to one race or another. So if a SB game does work there must be some sort of framework to work within. There must be a point to the game still and having NPC factions that are at war should be a key part. Players can decide to start their own faction or join an existing one. Otherwise you will have large bands of people running around fighting over territory that doesnt mean anything. Ultimately I want a game that gives me the option to make my own way and to do the 'normal' linear missions. EVE so far is the closest thing I have found with agent missions and its open play.
EVE is a quality game, but it isnt a SB, no. It is a conventional MMORPG with a few SB elements that make it better then a lot of other games out there.
If EVE was a SB game, the universe would have been empty at the start and the players would have been dumped through a worm hole with a ship and enough materials to start building. Eventually, they would have built their own factions, alliances, trade routes, missions, and space stations to populate that universe. They would have claimed, developed , and defended whatever they could grab.The whole point of a true SB game is that the players bring their own story and framework to the game, so saying there must be a framework is kinda missing the potentiol of what SB gaming can be.
Of course, achieving all this takes time, knowledge, emotional investment, and social skills, which is exactly the opposite of the fashionable thinking right now.
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises. Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved. One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far. Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world. It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations. I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
Uhh.. i guess you misunderstand the term sandbox by yourself. You mean a completely empty sandbox, but sandbox generally means within mmos, just, that you can tool around with almost everything in the world, that you can influence the world and stories, and that it is not a linear way of playing or storyline.. because not possible, because you can change things up.
But this does not mean, that you cant have a living npc world, whcih would work without any real player. Or that it is not possible to tell newbies, what they can do(to get involved in the world in the very beginning), and direct them into the different storylines, action, and let learn them within this time, how they can influence with different tools the world and the story. And even easy reward is not a problem, because everytime you learna new tool, it is his own reward. If you influence the storyline, or the world, it is a reward.. and you can have a lot of other rewards, too.
But however, as i said in this thread, it is much more work to realize something like that, and withit much more expensive, and because of that a good reason for the major companies not to do it.
And yes.. an empty sandbox will most probably always fail, because the majority of players are not willingly to start in an empty world and learn everything by themself. And in an empty sandbox you need month, and a lot of committed players to build up a basic infrastructur to give the newbs an easier starting.. and even then it is not as easy as in other games.
You can have all the advantages and luxuries for casuals in a sandbox game, as in any linear game.. it is just more work. There is absolut nothing from a linear game, which is not possible within a sandbox.. but there are a lot of thing, which are not possible in a linear game, but possible in a sandbox. To be honest, i personally think, that the linear type of games is a relic from the old single player games, but for real mmog, a sandbox is a much better environment, and you can have everything their, and even more... it is just a lot more work. But i guess in the future we will maybe see a lot more of sandboxes, and it could be even the new standard, at least if the first really successful sandbox game arrive, which surpass the wow playerbase. (but this will take a lot of time. ^^ 10 years could be a good timeframe for this)
And i think this was also the reason why Richard Garriot tried the sandbox way with his first mmog(UO), but i guess he also realized, that it is extremely much work, to do it perfect, and that maybe the time is not ready for it. Dont forget, UO was really small, you had just a few tools to change the world, and with almost no storyline, but nevertheless a good amount of encounters, like the different dungeons, treasure huntings, simple npc tasks(to few, if you ask me) and so on.. and later on the player driven content.
And look at Tabula Rasa.. this is also a spinoff from the sandbox idea, now he tries to make a more player driven storyline, but with less sandbox elements, to change the world.. now the player can just change, and be involved within the story. But for the perfect virtual world/sandbox, you need of course both, and of course more pvp involved, but i personally think, that the npc faction fight(pve) like in Tabula Rasa is also neccassary, especially in the beginning of every sandbox, to bring the player into the game, until they take over the old npc factions, or found by themself new factions.
So from a design standpoint it is a quite clever step forward, he tries to push one element forward, to get later on all elements as far, to be able to design the perfect virtual world/sandbox. It is just to expensive to do everything at once within one game, and no investor would most probably invest in it, to get something like that realized in a polished form. So make it step by step, and release for every step a game, to finance yourself, and then have all tools, to make one game out of it.
/shrug...
You understand the term to be something less then I do, thats fine, but you are still asking for a watered down version of what SB can really be imo. To me, you are selling yourself short and asking for less then the full deal.
To cut my point short, EVE isnt a SB game, while Tales in the Desert III is.
I feel I have explained my point pretty much here though, so I guess it's up to others to take it or leave it based on that. I think I am now gonna leave thhis thread before I start repeating myself
I would go along with that. Would you say EVE was a SB game? I remember starting 3+ years ago and flying around confused and frustrated until I realised that there wasn't a chirpy little NPC telling me to clear his corn fields from ants or whatever. Then I embraced the freedom and I am still playing 3.5 years later. Even so there was a very deep back story and there was some connection to one race or another. So if a SB game does work there must be some sort of framework to work within. There must be a point to the game still and having NPC factions that are at war should be a key part. Players can decide to start their own faction or join an existing one. Otherwise you will have large bands of people running around fighting over territory that doesnt mean anything. Ultimately I want a game that gives me the option to make my own way and to do the 'normal' linear missions. EVE so far is the closest thing I have found with agent missions and its open play.
EVE is a quality game, but it isnt a SB, no. It is a conventional MMORPG with a few SB elements that make it better then a lot of other games out there.
If EVE was a SB game, the universe would have been empty at the start and the players would have been dumped through a worm hole with a ship and enough materials to start building. Eventually, they would have built their own factions, alliances, trade routes, missions, and space stations to populate that universe. They would have claimed, developed , and defended whatever they could grab.The whole point of a true SB game is that the players bring their own story and framework to the game, so saying there must be a framework is kinda missing the potentiol of what SB gaming can be.
Of course, achieving all this takes time, knowledge, emotional investment, and social skills, which is exactly the opposite of the fashionable thinking right now.
just lol, go on, go make a sandbox just like you describe, see you in 50 years...
Comments
I wouldn't say it was the "only" answer because clearly many people like the linear thing. Aside from that I agree with the OP.
One problem is that not many people have seen just how effective a sandbox can be as an MMO. I can't comment much on Eve because I got too bored flying spaceships through vast nothingness to ever see what the game involved, but in most sandbox style mmorpgs it seems to be an excuse for lack of content. For a sandbox game to work you have to provide the tools to dig and shape the sand and very few games have achieved this.
I had a discussion with some players in a game which is considered to be one of the more sandboxy mmorpgs and the idea of player run cities was something they just couldn't imagine working, and yet probably the best multiplayer game I ever played did just that and in doing so provided player run story lines where people's characters could really make a mark in the history of that world. That game was a text MUD and other MUD players may know the kind of game I'm talking about.
Games such as Eve and SWG and many posts in these forums have shown that there is a market for such games. If any developers came up with a mmorpg with influences from the best sandbox MUDs, with the complexity of gameplay and options which allowed players to play their game how they like (trader, politician, commander, brawler, thief etc.) I think it would achieve great success.
The success of games like Everquest, World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Final Fantasy XI and many, many other games prove you're wrong. Sand box is NOT the only answer. in fact, its quite the opposide.
It is not the only answer, of course. But if you want a virtual living world, and not just a linear "single" player game playable with a few friends, sandbox is the way to go.
It is quite simple why linear games are much more successful, because they are simplier to develop, and not as much time consuming to develop. You need not a huge world, you need not ideas how the world could develop themself and foresee some developments and bring the right tools for it into the game.
But nevertheless, sandboxes would be successful, look at muds, the most of them are sandboxes, with a reason. And in a mud it is not as expensive, not as difficult to create a true virtual world/sandbox, you have not to worry about graphics and other stuff. And because Muds are much smaller, just a few hundred ppl at maximum.. so the world do not need to be as huge as with the modern standard of mmorpgs and a thousands of simultan players.
And the same is true for EvE or any space sandbox with very limited options.. this is also why EvE worked out that good, because it is not a lot possible, your are just limited on the space, not planets, not even spacestations, and not a lot of options what you can do, it is almost reduced to warfare and economic.
And by the way, there will never be just one answer for games and gamers, because there are thousand and millions and almost everyone with a different view to things, and different wishes.
Sandboxes are almost as old as computer games, and a lot of them are immortal within the game history. Just think about Pirates!, it is maybe the first sandbox(at least the first i remember at the moment), and it is a legend. And yes, sandbox is perfectly suited for massive multiplayer, just from the design point of view.
In a sandbox any player will have different experiences, and a linear mmo everyone have the same eperience, this is the great advantage of a sandbox, but on the other side the difficulty, it is not as easy to design, and technically to realize. That is the reason why we have not a great modern sandbox mmo, and it is the reason why not a major company works on a sandbox.. to much investment, to much innovation, and not really guaranteed income(because until now almost unproved).
However, just look at Second Life, it isnt even a real game, but after WoW the next big MMO.
And about Storytelling and Sandbox.. they are not mutual exclusive, you can impliment a lot of even different, and conflicting dynamic storylines within a sandbox, this is one of the pros of a sandbox. The point is noone has done it until now, because the reasons above, it is not easy, and it need a lot of work.
For me playing in a sandbox game is just as fun as playing in a actual sandbox.
I sit down and look around wondering what i should do, so i start just messing around, i do a few things, eventually build a house or castle, look around realize that theres nothing else to really do, so i smash it and then get up and leave.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Linear for occasional quick-fun, sandbox for more evolved gameplay.
I would, but since you left your abandoned for a few minutes some random people came up and stomped on it while you were over at mine.
I think we should look at the flip side as in what shouldn't be done. After playing several online games I am now quite angry at the lack of originality in all of them. Nearly all of them have a system, make character, follow linear mission, hit mob, gain xp, ding. max out and quit. So Sandbox may be one of the solutions but what really is needed is something ...well...anything different!
I have played EVE online for 3+ years and the next closest game to that was 3 months. Only reason why I have not quit is due to the fact I can do something else besides fighting and still level combat skills instead of having to grind my arse off to get another sparkly spell. That most of the time is pointless. Lower fire resistence..bah...
I don't mind the skill point allocation system though. Have 100+ available skills and each level get allocated sp's to spend on whatever. Race bonus's can apply easily enough. I would also love to see 'chance' improvements. Use an axe long enough and you may get a bonus point during combat.
But there would be solution for it, just fill your sandbox/virtual world with more or less clever npc inhabitants(as in solo player games like oblivion) within different fractions and so forth, give them a storyline and let them play(like a simulation) against each other, so that the virtual world would be living without any player. Bring in a storyline, so that the player will be hand held at the beginning, and given some simple quests/task. And after that the player can fullfil more and more positions in those npc factions and/or can take it over completely. And then could the player give out Quests/Task to other, new players, to bring them into the world, and so on.
However, the problem is the lack of good EI(emotional intelligence) and AI(artifical intelligence), but both is in developing, and will improved with the time.(i read about it anywhere.. cant remember, about a emotional intelligence engine, which should improve the social/emotional interaction from npcs). But the first step could be maybe, to make it like in singleplayer games(e.g. Siedler), where the npcs, worked with the tools you gave them. Build up a sawmill, and npc will begin to harvest the nearest forrest, and so forth and so on. well, everything in a little bit simplier level, but with the same idea.
But as i said before, something like that would be possible from a technically view of point, but it is rather complex, a lot of work to do, and withit much more expensive, than the much simpler linear games. And the big companies will always choose the easier path to the money, even if such a system would be profitable, not only the game, more as all the technology, the engines. But did you ever heard about a big company developing new software technology, or engines? No, of course not, they just buy them, and use it to maximize their profit whit as less of expenditure as possible. And for independent teams it is a great bury, they have not really a lot of money, to develop something like that for years with almost no income. But the new trend is, that specialist software companies, develop those engines independent, and different middleware, so that the actual mmo developer just need it to buy. But however, up to now we are far away from the point where you could really count on those engines and middleware.. they get better, but are now by no means as good as they should be. Just engines from the singleplayer genre(3D engine, physik engine) are at the high level, which would be needed.
SWG in its prime (when it still had a sandbox-based progression) it had around 300,000 subscribers. And that was 2-3 years ago, not to mention the game had its own problems.
A game as refined as WoW but had the same sandbox? I think it could EASILY hit 1,000,000 subs.
Seriously though, while SWG had sandbox elements, it was NEVER a true sandbox game of the type the OP is asking for.
I am not even gonna talk about SWG properly here though... every thread you even mention that game in gets hijacked by the mentally unstable SOE hating pre-NGE crowd for them to vent their angst and, TBH, it's just not worth it.
I totally agree with you OP. I wish it was the case, but the days of good sandbox just seem to be dying. I think it is because an older crowd is drawn to sandbox and a mmo company want youth so that the game has a long life.
PLEASE GIVE US A SWEET SANDBOX GAME!
The issue here is that you guys are getting caught up in the nomenclature and perception of what a sandbox might be. Those of us who desire with all our beings to have a world that can be freely molded want a sand box that gives us shovels and buckets and water and other people to play with. You can't just give people a chat room, call it a sand box and expect gamers to fill in the rest; you need to give them the tools to create their own virtual worlds and enterprises.
Many of you seem to get hooked on the idea that a sand box is nothing more than a big empty universe with a few avatars standing around, when the truth is that your perception befuddles you. As has been pointed out, EVE-Online is a great example of a sand box. You don't see people standing around wondering what to do, especially since the advent of tutorials and mechanisms that inspire players to get involved.
One of the greatest motivations for involvement is community, one that seemingly captivates even those who are antisocial in real life. Why? Because it's human nature to interact with each other, and that's ultimately what's lacking on a grand scale from nearly every single traditional MMORPG thus far.
Don't forget that Ultima Online and Saga of Ryzom were in fact iterations of the sand box model. Even now the glory of these games is still being praised by those who remember the potential for this genre. Most of you are blinded by the teething monetary successes of World of Warcraft, but let me remind you that you are adopting the perspective of those who seek to make nothing more than money out of the vast greatness that is an online world.
It is my dream, and the dream of others as has been shown, that we will one day have a true sand box virtual world where human dynamism and pliability of the game world go hand in hand to create the ultimate virtual world experience that we all, on some level lust for in our imaginations.
I implore you to continue discussion of this topic so that more will come to understand the wonder that is possible if only development crews would put aside their greed for the dollar and seek to innovate instead. In order to make this happen we should rally those with excesses of money to donate to the cause of evolving the genre in a way that may eventually lead us to the Matrix and holodecks.
Play the way you want to play.
I don't think people's right to play the way they wanna play is actually being discussed here...
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
I would go along with that. Would you say EVE was a SB game? I remember starting 3+ years ago and flying around confused and frustrated until I realised that there wasn't a chirpy little NPC telling me to clear his corn fields from ants or whatever. Then I embraced the freedom and I am still playing 3.5 years later. Even so there was a very deep back story and there was some connection to one race or another. So if a SB game does work there must be some sort of framework to work within. There must be a point to the game still and having NPC factions that are at war should be a key part. Players can decide to start their own faction or join an existing one. Otherwise you will have large bands of people running around fighting over territory that doesnt mean anything. Ultimately I want a game that gives me the option to make my own way and to do the 'normal' linear missions. EVE so far is the closest thing I have found with agent missions and its open play.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
Uhh.. i guess you misunderstand the term sandbox by yourself. You mean a completely empty sandbox, but sandbox generally means within mmos, just, that you can tool around with almost everything in the world, that you can influence the world and stories, and that it is not a linear way of playing or storyline.. because not possible, because you can change things up.
But this does not mean, that you cant have a living npc world, whcih would work without any real player. Or that it is not possible to tell newbies, what they can do(to get involved in the world in the very beginning), and direct them into the different storylines, action, and let learn them within this time, how they can influence with different tools the world and the story. And even easy reward is not a problem, because everytime you learna new tool, it is his own reward. If you influence the storyline, or the world, it is a reward.. and you can have a lot of other rewards, too.
But however, as i said in this thread, it is much more work to realize something like that, and withit much more expensive, and because of that a good reason for the major companies not to do it.
And yes.. an empty sandbox will most probably always fail, because the majority of players are not willingly to start in an empty world and learn everything by themself. And in an empty sandbox you need month, and a lot of committed players to build up a basic infrastructur to give the newbs an easier starting.. and even then it is not as easy as in other games.
You can have all the advantages and luxuries for casuals in a sandbox game, as in any linear game.. it is just more work. There is absolut nothing from a linear game, which is not possible within a sandbox.. but there are a lot of thing, which are not possible in a linear game, but possible in a sandbox. To be honest, i personally think, that the linear type of games is a relic from the old single player games, but for real mmog, a sandbox is a much better environment, and you can have everything their, and even more... it is just a lot more work. But i guess in the future we will maybe see a lot more of sandboxes, and it could be even the new standard, at least if the first really successful sandbox game arrive, which surpass the wow playerbase. (but this will take a lot of time. ^^ 10 years could be a good timeframe for this)
And i think this was also the reason why Richard Garriot tried the sandbox way with his first mmog(UO), but i guess he also realized, that it is extremely much work, to do it perfect, and that maybe the time is not ready for it. Dont forget, UO was really small, you had just a few tools to change the world, and with almost no storyline, but nevertheless a good amount of encounters, like the different dungeons, treasure huntings, simple npc tasks(to few, if you ask me) and so on.. and later on the player driven content.
And look at Tabula Rasa.. this is also a spinoff from the sandbox idea, now he tries to make a more player driven storyline, but with less sandbox elements, to change the world.. now the player can just change, and be involved within the story. But for the perfect virtual world/sandbox, you need of course both, and of course more pvp involved, but i personally think, that the npc faction fight(pve) like in Tabula Rasa is also neccassary, especially in the beginning of every sandbox, to bring the player into the game, until they take over the old npc factions, or found by themself new factions.
So from a design standpoint it is a quite clever step forward, he tries to push one element forward, to get later on all elements as far, to be able to design the perfect virtual world/sandbox. It is just to expensive to do everything at once within one game, and no investor would most probably invest in it, to get something like that realized in a polished form. So make it step by step, and release for every step a game, to finance yourself, and then have all tools, to make one game out of it.
If EVE was a SB game, the universe would have been empty at the start and the players would have been dumped through a worm hole with a ship and enough materials to start building. Eventually, they would have built their own factions, alliances, trade routes, missions, and space stations to populate that universe. They would have claimed, developed , and defended whatever they could grab.The whole point of a true SB game is that the players bring their own story and framework to the game, so saying there must be a framework is kinda missing the potentiol of what SB gaming can be.
Of course, achieving all this takes time, knowledge, emotional investment, and social skills, which is exactly the opposite of the fashionable thinking right now.
This pretty much sums it up for me also. Games do not have to be just 'Sandbox'. I think the best model for a mmo is pretty simple and should incorporate sandbox play. e.g:
* Faction warfare so you know who your enemy is and its FFA.
* Deep storyline so you feel passionate about your faction and the option to fight side by side with NPC from your faction.
* Sandbox element is where players can construct housing, workshops and actually help the NPC faction hold / win ground. Actually see your efforts mean something besides the usual 'kill 100 undead' only to see them spawn again.
I believe games like Vanguard missed a trick there. If VG had a storyline that set races against each other and a sandbox element added to let players repair / build walls, build towers and siege equipment and had fleets raiding other races territories then it would be huge.
Not singing Eve-Online's praises but regarding the FFA people will naturally develop groups and this has happened in EVE in a big way. Besides you can still have NPC police in noob / trade areas. However EVE still needs NPC faction warfare and the sandbox element could be used better.
It's clear what you are asking isnt a SB game, but a MMORPG that lets you build stuff and influence established factions in a linear pre ordained world. Thats cool and all, but lets be clear in what we are talking about here.
There arnt too many players out there that could actually handle a pure SB game imo, and that includes most in this thread. Most peeps out there need to be told what to do, need to be directed, need to have a framework, need a fast and easy reward system. Whats more, in an evermore growing solo casual MMO arcade game friendly environment this aint gonna change anytime soon. Saying this, even at the peak of UOs glory it was owned by EQ, mainly because most prefered the EQ more directed model to the UO Sandbox one, so I am not sure SBs have ever been more then a minority thing.
Tbh, I am frustrated by exactly the same thing as you guys are, and that is why I am moving back to PnP RPGs more and more. In those games you can truly build and direct worlds, in these you just turn up and go through the motions most of the tme. they just seem more 'real' (in a weird way...) then pushing numbers around in a virtual knitting game.
In a true SB game, you make your own deep story line and factions.
Uhh.. i guess you misunderstand the term sandbox by yourself. You mean a completely empty sandbox, but sandbox generally means within mmos, just, that you can tool around with almost everything in the world, that you can influence the world and stories, and that it is not a linear way of playing or storyline.. because not possible, because you can change things up.
But this does not mean, that you cant have a living npc world, whcih would work without any real player. Or that it is not possible to tell newbies, what they can do(to get involved in the world in the very beginning), and direct them into the different storylines, action, and let learn them within this time, how they can influence with different tools the world and the story. And even easy reward is not a problem, because everytime you learna new tool, it is his own reward. If you influence the storyline, or the world, it is a reward.. and you can have a lot of other rewards, too.
But however, as i said in this thread, it is much more work to realize something like that, and withit much more expensive, and because of that a good reason for the major companies not to do it.
And yes.. an empty sandbox will most probably always fail, because the majority of players are not willingly to start in an empty world and learn everything by themself. And in an empty sandbox you need month, and a lot of committed players to build up a basic infrastructur to give the newbs an easier starting.. and even then it is not as easy as in other games.
You can have all the advantages and luxuries for casuals in a sandbox game, as in any linear game.. it is just more work. There is absolut nothing from a linear game, which is not possible within a sandbox.. but there are a lot of thing, which are not possible in a linear game, but possible in a sandbox. To be honest, i personally think, that the linear type of games is a relic from the old single player games, but for real mmog, a sandbox is a much better environment, and you can have everything their, and even more... it is just a lot more work. But i guess in the future we will maybe see a lot more of sandboxes, and it could be even the new standard, at least if the first really successful sandbox game arrive, which surpass the wow playerbase. (but this will take a lot of time. ^^ 10 years could be a good timeframe for this)
And i think this was also the reason why Richard Garriot tried the sandbox way with his first mmog(UO), but i guess he also realized, that it is extremely much work, to do it perfect, and that maybe the time is not ready for it. Dont forget, UO was really small, you had just a few tools to change the world, and with almost no storyline, but nevertheless a good amount of encounters, like the different dungeons, treasure huntings, simple npc tasks(to few, if you ask me) and so on.. and later on the player driven content.
And look at Tabula Rasa.. this is also a spinoff from the sandbox idea, now he tries to make a more player driven storyline, but with less sandbox elements, to change the world.. now the player can just change, and be involved within the story. But for the perfect virtual world/sandbox, you need of course both, and of course more pvp involved, but i personally think, that the npc faction fight(pve) like in Tabula Rasa is also neccassary, especially in the beginning of every sandbox, to bring the player into the game, until they take over the old npc factions, or found by themself new factions.
So from a design standpoint it is a quite clever step forward, he tries to push one element forward, to get later on all elements as far, to be able to design the perfect virtual world/sandbox. It is just to expensive to do everything at once within one game, and no investor would most probably invest in it, to get something like that realized in a polished form. So make it step by step, and release for every step a game, to finance yourself, and then have all tools, to make one game out of it.
/shrug...
You understand the term to be something less then I do, thats fine, but you are still asking for a watered down version of what SB can really be imo. To me, you are selling yourself short and asking for less then the full deal.
To cut my point short, EVE isnt a SB game, while Tales in the Desert III is.
I feel I have explained my point pretty much here though, so I guess it's up to others to take it or leave it based on that. I think I am now gonna leave thhis thread before I start repeating myself
If EVE was a SB game, the universe would have been empty at the start and the players would have been dumped through a worm hole with a ship and enough materials to start building. Eventually, they would have built their own factions, alliances, trade routes, missions, and space stations to populate that universe. They would have claimed, developed , and defended whatever they could grab.The whole point of a true SB game is that the players bring their own story and framework to the game, so saying there must be a framework is kinda missing the potentiol of what SB gaming can be.
Of course, achieving all this takes time, knowledge, emotional investment, and social skills, which is exactly the opposite of the fashionable thinking right now.
just lol, go on, go make a sandbox just like you describe, see you in 50 years...EVE is a sandbox
9 million people playing WoW are telling you to stfu on a daily basis..
9 million 45% bots and 20% left the game but still got accounts you means that 9 mil????